Radio Miraya
2734: Nationwide. Nairobi Peace Talks
Hello and welcome to Nationwide discussion hour on Radio Miriam with me, Gabriel Shadar. And it's welcome back for me. I've been away for quite a long time, a couple of weeks. And of course today we will be focusing on the ongoing peace talks that are taking place in Nairobi between the government and the hold out groups that are engaging the government. We all know that the revitalised peace agreement that was signed and revitalised in 2020, some other parties opted out of it and they refused to join those terms in the agreement. And some were saying there are other issues that are missing in the agreement and the fundamental or the root cause of the problems in the country have not been resolved while the other parties to the agreement say or said this agreement has, that is the revitalised agreement on the resolution of comforting South Sudan has resolved all the problems of South Sudan. And there is no need for others to opt out and keep out and hold out of the peace deal. Now after quite more than three or four years of engaging first in the room and in other places, we will be seeing what are the expectations from these talks and what would we like these talks to resolve and also to agree on. We have connected to our guest that is online, a professor at the University of Juba, that is the Peace and Security Studies at the University of Juba. He is also a member of the SUT Institute that is the Singh Chiang base in Juba. Also look welcome on Radio Miraya once again and I hope you are getting me loud and clear. Thank you very much. Yes, and before you join me I introduce that the peace talks taking place in Nairobi these days are involving the government of the country, the government of South Sudan, which is a big government revitalised government and the holdout groups that have been opting out of the revitalised agreement. Now Dr. Luca, what could be the significance of these talks for the parties that are involved in Nairobi at the moment? I think that thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I think the initiative of our president to designate the opinion to maybe a peace talk between the dignitaries to the revitalised is agreement and the holdout. It is a positive move in a sense that looking for the brilliant solutions from within the region. The significance is that definitely for us to have a comprehensive peace in our country, it is absolutely very important for all the parties to be engaged. The holdout groups are very important for sustaining peace, and it particularly as we are heading towards election. Secondly, I think also having pain here with the support of the international community, the high attendance that has been shown during the opening is suggesting how the international community meets the support of pain there willingness to support the people of South Sudan. One is so impressed by the body language that has been shown by the parties, especially with President the term of the key leaders of the Israeli. So I think quite a significant. What is the significance for the citizens of South Sudan? As you know, we have been, people of South Sudan have been inspiring for a peaceful country so that they can do their normal livelihood in a good conducive environment. And definitely, when you talk about peace and others are not in the process, I think bringing back all the people to the part of the peace, I think it is quite important. We will send a very powerful signal to the citizens of South Sudan, but as you know, it is not the lack of peace agreement that we are tracing in this country. I think the willingness to implement, I think it is very challenging, even though you may be having more peace agreement, we hope this one will will augment and strengthen the peace agreement and to be implemented so that you can meet the needs and the demand of our people. Dr. Lucca, there might be, this is just a follow-up question. Like, if the actually peace agreement that has been signed by five different groups is said to be staggering. There are difficulties of implementing it. There are challenges that were unforeseen and unexpected. And there were challenges that were known by people and they knew that and also observed was knew that this peace agreement is very complicated. It would be very difficult, grisly tasked to implement it to the letter and the spirit. And now we are having this other negotiation. And so, how can it add up? How can it add up so that we have an ideal situation that will lead us to elections? Yeah, I know that very challenging, challenging environment, especially given the fact that most of the peace agreement provisions have not been implemented. And given the fact also the desire of our people that they were to have elections and to put an end to this and endless and to the fact that extension of the peace agreement. And that's through why the, if it's significant, I think one of the things definitely that's coming, they're not going to start my own thinking. I think that very good foundation, good provision within the year, within the river survives peace agreement. And one of the areas I feel are quite physical, especially in the area of security arrangement and in the area of the economy, which is the oil sector, and even in the area of judicial and legal system. I think these are very important areas, and I believe these people, they may bring in an added value to to expedite the implementation of the peace agreement. But that's the right to put it. It is, this is an opportunity for the elites of South Sudan to show a commitment to make a difference. And I think it is, in fact, some of us, we strongly believe that moving will be election is extremely important, but we know the challenging facing election because this is the desire of the people of South Sudan. And this will be able to reduce the huge burden of the government on the people. Definitely the agreement itself, if there's any agreement going to come out from Nairobi, it will have some implications whether the people will commit themselves the same timeline of having election, which shouldn't be allowed at the time for the extension. But definitely any desire for any people sitting together to talk about peace, it gives hope to the citizens. Listen to me, I'm talking to Professor Luka Byung-Deng, always member of the University of Duba, of course, he's teaching at the University of Duba in the peace and security studies, and also he's a member of the SUT Institute, and also he's also a former minister in the government of South Sudan, many years back, and also one of the leaders of the SPLM, but now he's full-time academic. And of course, Dr. Luka, you just mentioned that the implications for the peace agreement, but let's look at the mediator and the convener, and you said earlier that it is the president of the Republic who asked the Kenyan government to mediate after the Rome talks is told somewhere at some point. Now, what is the -- what kind of leverage can the mediator have on the parties so that they can reach a deal, and we had the experience of the CPA in which you were part also in the years from 2002 and up to 2005? Yeah, Gabriel, I think the good thing about Kenya, Kenya has a very wealth of experience in demiguation, and as you mentioned, the comparison to peace agreements is one of the very detailed and very, very, very progressive agreements. And it took actually the parties were clearly having incompatible ideologies, how they would look at Sudan based on secularism or Sudan based on Islam. But I think the -- and that's why the experience of Kenya is really, very important. It provides them the knowledge and how they can lead differently. The second one is the mediator, somebody like Gabriel Lasro Timbueva, somebody who is so knowledgeable about South America. In fact, when he assumed his mediator, mediation Rome in the CPA, he decided to visit all the areas of Sudan to have -- all the areas affected by conflict, to have a sense. There is a man having a lot of knowledge, and he's really trusted, and somebody who can be really very, very good mediator. The third one is that Kenya is being seen in the region now as a multi-stable and also having a democratic system. So it's well situated because the people will be talking about peace agreements, about the good governance, and how you move the debate to the people themselves. And the last one, you know very well that Kenya is hosting a large number of our refugees. Not only that, most of our kids are actually in Kenya, is standing there. So that is, I said, is a leverage in a sense that we know that in this region, Kenya is very exciting. And then love is present rutu, if somebody is very agile, the energetic and very committed to the issues of issues of good governance. And I think we see South Sudan has an opportunity to extend and to lay the basis and foundation for a transition that can make South Sudan a democratic country that can enjoy the peace and stability. Yeah, Victor, look up Jung as you give this reflection about the role of Kenya. And we are as a mediator. Let's look back at who is talking now, who is talking with who. And you can agree with me. These are the same people. These are the same people who led the liberation. These are the same people who have been comrades. These are the same people who shared bread and water. And a long history. And of course, one might wonder how the same comrades, after independence, they engaged in this. We have more similar stories in the post-liberation movement in Africa, who landed in personal differences, not too much ideologies and all these kinds of things. And when we say these are the same people talking, should it make it very difficult to agree? Or what do you think? When the leaders of this country, they leave, look at themselves and see that why should they be in this condition? Yes, you feel a very heavy laundry, very interested person. But let me put in this perspective. I feel the branch of movement, usually, they tend to face challenge of how to govern. And it is not all in South Sudan, because if the transition is not difficult, having a liberation movement, which is focusing on fighting war and having the ideology as well. So when they come and govern, they face a lot of difficulties. So the transition from a liberation movement to a political party is a very bumpy process. It is not easy. And usually, the branch of movement, once they govern, they tend to be very popular from the early states. And then usually take them some decades, and then you will see the process of democratization within the liberation movement. And it is really thinking that the division of stuff is coming out. Sometimes it is healthy, because the division is good because there could be different views of how people would like to govern. And I think you have cheated all over Africa, the transition of the racial movement from an immigration movement to a political party and for them to govern. So it is not unique to South Sudan. What is unique to South Sudan, the period within which they expanded dividing itself was shorter than the normal process. And I know, and you know, one of the books, I think you could take it also as an advantage, and you value to it. It takes people to have unbelievable history of this project. And when they sit down, just if they reflect about the journey during these projects, you will see they have one thing in common. These are comrades. And I believe this is the thing, if the nature on that, and going back to the point together, I think that could be an opportunity that eventually they will come together because these are the people who they know themselves, they have unbelievable and I mean, incident that they work together as comrades. So I think as an opportunity, a division is not bad in any political party, but a division should be peaceful. It should be enhanced how you respect other views. And that conversation is in the diversity of views and even the democratization in the country. This is Rodeo Miraya, this is a nationwide discussion hour, and this is Meghia Rveshedal, and I'm talking to a Dr. Luka Biong from the University of Juba, Peace and Security Studies, and also a member of the SUT Institute, a think tank based in Juba, South Sudan. And we are talking about his perspectives and also perspectives and also views on the ongoing peace talks that are involving the government of South Sudan, the revitalized government of South Sudan, and also the holdout groups that are not signatories to the revitalized agreement on the resolution of conflict in South Sudan. Now, the parties have reportedly entering their second day of closed door negotiations with the presentation of positions and shadow diplomacy between the mediators between the parties. And of course, up to now, we as the observers and also the public in at large, we are being served with generalities that they have presented these positions on issues like governance, economics, economy, and security, and all these, but no details being given. Is that an advantage in not showing the positions while they are talking? Is that an advantage, and so that the mediator or the parties themselves can reach some points of agreement that the public might not even be involved in debate? You know, we are dealing with mismediation by somebody like Donald Zagweber. He is a very clear mediator, and he is having a lot of experience. One of the things in any mediation or any peace talk is we don't want to have the peace talk to be for public debate, like, what is happening in social media? If a woman is being a lot of the services and can be plugged, there is no discussion within the year. So I think it is moment for any mediation to make sure, in fact, that even for folks who have signed an understanding of how to mainly the information. And I think this is something I believe that we have agreed upon, that we have to keep the discussion to ourselves and look for the public consensus. Because the moment we do it public and we make a statement, we shoot the mediation with the public domain. But you need a trusted platform whereby people can even take some time for them to build a relationship. We will take some time to understand each other. And the moment we take some time for them to start this serious negotiation. So I think it is a healthy that they should keep these early discussions to the, to the, to be quite cool. Unless there is a very, the way you want to pass information that the public would like to have information. But that information is filtered and to organize so that the parties can be able to convey a message that can provide hope, but not to discuss the discussion. How much can, do you think that there is a possibility that they can agree without twisting of hands, without regional bodies coming here and there? Or this is part of the mediation itself. I think, I think that the way, the way, the way Kenya and I presume the way they have done it, if you look at the observers, the observers are basically the friends of South Sudan, but the regional and international institutions. And you could see clearly the commitment of all these observers. And by doing so, and in fact, this experience of, of the CPA is part of a trend like Kenya, India, India, and then that around the, the EU got him in. So you have these incremental approach. Eventually, whenever agreement are going through this, it should get into the African Union. And then the, the EU got definitely going to play a role to support the, the, the, the, the Kenyan led mediation. I think Kenya is doing it and I like the why our president decided to bring, to bring it to home to the region because you need to anchor any agreement to the, to the, to the regional administration, because these are the people, that's going to be the one that you are the central over seeing the implementation. And it will be linked to the particular one. So actually it's very important that having Kenya, but in fact, it's going to be, be linked to the, the institution and the African Union and the United Nations as well. I have just one or two questions before I let you go. Dr. Luca, one party is missing in this. And this is the, the group of general Thomas Schirello. And he has one faction that broke away from him is, what is your reading into this situation at the moment and what, what could happen or what should happen in this case for the mediators. And even for the general political spectrum in the country at the moment. I think definitely Thomas Schirello is a very important definitely for any peace in South Sudan. And it's not only one of the, one of the people who contributed during the immigration. And he is quite important. And I know for the negation, they will, they will definitely continue to engage him. It is not only the mediators, even the friends of Thomas Schirello should be able to help and encourage him to join this opportunity. And I think at the core, should the national core, why it is important for him to be part of this process. I know there are some difficulties, but the fact people manage to sit down. I think we could be part of this path for stability. And for you to sing the song of peace, it is very important for everything that comes to the atmosphere. They are yelling for the, for the peace. And I think this is an opportunity for every leader to be really part of the process. You did count all your issues on the table. But actually, I see this is important to work for everybody to be there in this process. And I am hopeful that the leader will definitely be able to join. Now, we have a peace agreement that is being implemented. This is, this was our starting point. And of course, now the peace agreement is based on power sharing. This is real reality and the practical side of it. People are sharing power. People are sharing responsibilities. So, how do you see the impact of any deal that might be reached in Nairobi from these talks? Me, I feel, you know, the liberalized peace agreement, I think definitely will provide a foundation, the basis. And I think they are not going to start from nowhere. And if they look critical to the liberalized peace agreement, yes, indeed, there are some areas for improvement. I think what is missing in this agreement is only the implementation, a commitment for the parties to implement. And if I were them, it really would be good. I mean, government is that the talk in Nairobi will affect the current peace agreement. It definitely has to be amended in one way or another. That's why I was talking about, is you whether they are going to have any extension or should they be able to commit themselves to the election as provided in the roadmap. But that, that, because I wish if they could be able, and the mediators to be able to move away from these elites, power sharing, and to look at the bigger issues facing the country. And I think those bigger issues are more important than the issue of power sharing, because that's the weakness is more of the peace agreement. In a sense that you focus on the issues of power sharing, and you could see now in this big agreement, if it's only the power sharing agreement being implemented largely more for the provision. But not a provision, we are actually quite fundamental. If you talk about the issue for the security sector, if you talk about the economic sector, especially the oil sector, if you talk about the legal system, the judiciary, and legal system, these are core issues. These are very important issues, but the challenge of humanitarian and the traditional justice. I feel these are the very fundamental thing if they could focus on issues. And I think those issues are the one, the root causes, if you don't handle them, then you have this cycle of violence coming. And eventually, even if there's any change in those ones, I think if I were them, what could be then differently to implement the peace agreement? How can they be able to ensure these critical issues around security, around equality, around the judiciary, or the legal system, could be able to improve? And how can you address the issue of the wounds of the power, the transitional justice? So, I see these are the very important issues. Definitely, the issue of the conversation becoming very important. Maybe these are an area people could talk about the key elements of the permanent conversation that are very important to be resolved and to be enshrined around in the family conditions. I feel that the focus on issues around that power sharing, I think that that may move. And I know the mediator will be focusing, will try to focus on those ones. But it should be the government and the whole group to advance these against the issue, because of other than power sharing. So, you believe any impact on the implementation of the peace agreement, any amendment adjustments here and there in the long run is beneficial for the country. It's done a quick fix. Definitely. There's no doubt about it. There's no way to address the option of war is not an option. I know what you will enjoy that you can't actually see something war. The option of peace is the only option, the only viable option. But it should be a peace that will be sustainable, a good peace. And the option for art is to get together, to die low. Give me this. It's the only way you can leave the world and you can put a new, a new social contact and let us move together as one nation. Dr. Rooka Vyong, really thanks for your time and with that I have come to the end of today's national eye discussion hour. And I had Dr. Rooka Vyongding online and I gave insightful comments on the prospects of the peace talks between the government of South Sudan. And they hold out groups and the talks are continuing and we will keep updating you. Thank you very much for listening and that is all from me, Gabe Richard Arro, National White, Andre de Maria.